Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) which had quashed land acquisition proceedings on the ground that the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not declared within two years from the date of the Section 6 declaration, as required by Section 11A of the Act. The acquired land was in village Asarjan, Nanded, for which Section 4 notification was issued on 01.03.2012 and Section 6 declaration on 07.02.2013. The original writ petitioners challenged the acquisition in 2012, and the High Court granted interim orders protecting possession and later restraining the declaration of the final award in related writ petitions. The award was ultimately declared on 08.05.2015. The High Court held that the acquisition had lapsed because the award was beyond two years from the Section 6 declaration, rejecting the State's argument that the period of interim stay should be excluded. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that the period during which the High Court's interim stay operated, whether on possession or on declaration of award, must be excluded while computing the two-year period under Section 11A. The Court relied on several precedents including G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. State of Karnataka and Raj Kumar Gandhi v. Chandigarh Administration, which established that the period of stay is to be excluded. The Court found that the High Court's distinction between stay on possession and stay on declaration of award was artificial and contrary to settled law. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and dismissed the writ petitions, restoring the acquisition proceedings.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition - Section 11A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Exclusion of Stay Period - The period during which a court stay operates, whether restraining declaration of award or possession, must be excluded while computing the two-year period under Section 11A for declaring the award under Section 11 of the Act. The High Court erred in not excluding the stay period, leading to erroneous quashing of acquisition proceedings. (Paras 5-10) B) Land Acquisition - Interim Stay - Effect on Declaration of Award - Section 11, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Even if stay is only on possession, the authority is justified in not declaring the award during the pendency of challenge to acquisition, as the entire proceedings are under cloud. The High Court's distinction between stay on possession and stay on declaration of award is artificial and contrary to settled law. (Paras 5-10) C) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition - Section 11A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Applicability of Precedents - The Supreme Court's decisions in G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. State of Karnataka, Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat, and Raj Kumar Gandhi v. Chandigarh Administration establish that the period of interim stay must be excluded for computing limitation under Section 11A. The High Court's failure to follow these precedents led to an erroneous conclusion. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the period during which interim stay was granted by the High Court restraining the declaration of award or disturbing possession should be excluded while computing the two-year period under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for declaring the award under Section 11 of the Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petitions, thereby restoring the acquisition proceedings. The Court held that the period of interim stay must be excluded while computing the two-year period under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Law Points
- Exclusion of period of interim stay for computing limitation under Section 11A
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Lapse of acquisition proceedings
- Effect of stay orders on declaration of award
